Personal experiance should mean something

[Dr. Tarrasque]

With Est who has horrible avalibility and start, yes. But with Lilina for example who joins in Chapter 8/25 which is over a third of the game it's resonable. If Lilina came when Sophia does then she'll be pretty bad. There are times when it's true like in Est's case but other times like Linde's where it isn't. I'm not determined to get them to stop being called bad. I just want it acknowledged that they CAN be good.

It's already agreed that just about anyone abused can rape enemies in the game. That's basically the equivalent of what you say you want.

Again I see it. I'll admit that Lugh can be better. Lugh is much better at dodging and taking a hit. Lilina is better in a power way.

Only through abuse. Lugh requires less effort too and you don't have to be as careful about using him like you do with Lilina. After abuse though... it's not even worth discussing.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Sirius

[Renall]

Luigi bros, you abuse, which is why you think that these units that debaters find terrible are awesome. To a person who plays normally and doesn't abuse, they are not awesome. That's what they're saying.

Use whoever you want and play however you want. Do not spread false information.

At the risk of elevating the discussion to a level it probably doesn't deserve...

The problem with abuse it that it is to an extent so easy that some minor forms of abuse are probable for many players. It depends, of course, on the player and the game (obviously you can't abuse the wi-fi shop in a game that isn't FEDS). What happens, though, is that certain sanctioned forms of abuse and favoritism create a greater likelihood of a unit being perceived as good via personal experience (regardless of what raw stats or averages might suggest).

FE10 is kind of a good example of this. Battle Saves are very abusable. I don't know anyone other than myself who has meticulously abused them to give everyone as close to max stats as possible (and I only did it for laughs, and I'm still stuck in 4-5 leveling Bastian or whoever after a year of intermittent boss abuse), but certainly I know there are quite a few people who will reset if a character gets an especially bad level (at least on the player phase). This is relevant (not to tier debates, but in general) because it means prepromotes are not as good as they are in a strict averages context; Edward can wind up better than Mia and Zihark if he's given preferential levels (3+ stats per level, although in Edward's case that's actually not good enough but you know what I mean) since he has more levels to gain, and the average player isn't looking at things in terms of efficiency (they don't take forever on maps, but they probably don't try to complete them very quickly either). This can lead to a misperception of Edward being better than he really is, which combined with things like his inexplicable popularity due to his appearance (Nephenee I can understand because she's an attractive female, but Eddie?) makes people attribute positive personal experience to him more often than for other characters. The thing is, he's not as good as they think, but he's probably turning out OKAY.

FE9 BExp is another example. I certainly will reload if the level is crappy. IS clearly realized people would and did do this because they changed the system for FE10. Again, this advantages earlier characters which leads to things like people finding Titania to not be that great (the "jeigan" stigma probably also affects this) even though she's basically God Tier to debaters (and rightly so).

I don't know how much abuse runs in the people who play SNES games (I only recently learned how to easily manipulate the Thracia RNG, and now I pretty much do it constantly), but certainly the GBA games had their share. While I doubt too many average players manipulate the pathing arrow to cycle RNGs, I'm sure they abuse savestates (if emulating) and arenas. Perhaps they don't sit around getting everyone to 20, but they'll use an arena, which fucks up tiers something nasty. It also tends to favor certain characters (those who do well in an arena due to either overkill offense or defense).

RNG abuse in general favors characters with balanced, moderate-high growths. Skewed-growth characters may turn out better on averages, but it's easier to manipulate a character with a bunch of 30-50% growths into 6+ stat levels (this is why Mist is better than Rhys if you abuse the RNG). Also, reading things on boards like this might encourage people to reset if they don't get particular stats. After reading that Ike needed a certain amount of SPD by 3-7 in FE10, I made sure he gained it every level... and wound up with an Ike that had remarkably under-average STR. This colored my personal experience until I did it again and realized Ike is supposed to be MUCH stronger than mine was.

To an extent, personal experience and abuse are acceptable if they're predicate conditions of a discussion. But they also make discussion very difficult to engage in beyond preliminary considerations. The idea of PEMN is fundamentally absurd while playing the game, as your personal experience and the abuse decisions you engage in or do not engage in fundamentally change certain aspects of the game (with exceptions; you can't make Athos or FE10 Haar bad). But the idea of not using PEMN when debating is equally absurd, as it turns things into an opinion contest.

Well, I mean tier lists and rating threads and whatnot usually already are veiled opinion contests, but at least people are asked to bring facts from time to time.

[luigi bros]

Lilina has a 75% Magic growth. Lugh has 40%. Lilina also has a higher cap. Lugh may deal more damage with doubling but that can't deny Lilina's large Magic lead. Lilina is also better for the Final Chapter I think. Mamkute's are pretty accurate so dodging is hard an Lilina haas enough power to almost kill them an Elfire tome. Lugh would need Forblaze or help.

[Rodykitty]

Lugh may deal more damage with doubling but that can't deny Lilina's large Magic lead.

Uhh, yes it can. Doing more damage is kind of the goal here.

[Chalis]

I'm probably going to bring unwanted attention here but when is it considered abuse? When you go 'out-of-line' from the Rank System?

A tier list on FE8 is absurd.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I'm probably going to bring unwanted attention here but when is it considered abuse? When you go 'out-of-line' from the Rank System?

A tier list on FE8 is absurd.

When you go out of your way to spend more time in chapter when you're already done with it. Like say you killed the boss and the lord can seize on the next turn and you've got all the treasure you want. Staying there to use the arena would be abuse. In some rank playthroughs of FE6 it may actually be ideal to do it for a few turns because of how easy the turn rank is.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Sirius

[luigi bros]

Lugh may deal more damage with doubling but that can't deny Lilina's large Magic lead.

Uhh, yes it can. Doing more damage is kind of the goal here.

If Lilina has at least twice as much Magic as Lugh, which isn't unlikely, if they're both using the same weapon then Lilina will do as much damage. Lilina is likely to have more Magic than Lugh so she'll usually do more even without doubling. And her Speed isn't General slow so it's not like she'll never double. My math may be a bit off becauseI'm tired, but you get the idea.

[Renall]

I'm probably going to bring unwanted attention here but when is it considered abuse? When you go 'out-of-line' from the Rank System?

A tier list on FE8 is absurd.

I wouldn't consider using the arena abuse. But using it for excessive numbers of turns (more than say 3-5 turns after you could finish the chapter) is certainly abuse.

I wouldn't consider stuff like the FEDS wi-fi shop abuse, although some people might frown on it.

Blocking reinforcements is something I consider shady but it isn't abuse because IS could've easily worked around it and didn't (and in the case of GBA forts encourage you to do it). Likewise gimmicky tricks like capture manipulation in FE5 or Disarm abusing in FE10 might be abusive if used to excess but are not abuse fundamentally.

What I'd consider abuse: Glitches (Rescue Staff in FE4), RNG manipulation (drawing pathing lines to cycle the RNG in GBA games), resets or savestates for better stats, abusing FE9 bexp (but not abusing FE10 bexp as I don't know anyone, not even myself, who would reset for FE10's bexp system).

[Rodykitty]

Blocking reinforcements is something I consider shady but it isn't abuse because IS could've easily worked around it and didn't (and in the case of GBA forts encourage you to do it). Likewise gimmicky tricks like capture manipulation in FE5 or Disarm abusing in FE10 might be abusive if used to excess but are not abuse fundamentally.

What the fizzeck. Never mind that we use actual tactics. If it isn't fighting like a man, it's abuse!

[Renall]

Blocking reinforcements is something I consider shady but it isn't abuse because IS could've easily worked around it and didn't (and in the case of GBA forts encourage you to do it). Likewise gimmicky tricks like capture manipulation in FE5 or Disarm abusing in FE10 might be abusive if used to excess but are not abuse fundamentally.

What the fizzeck. Never mind that we use actual tactics. If it isn't fighting like a man, it's abuse!

I know you like to troll me over this but you didn't even take the part where I said it wasn't abuse out of there to make my quote out of context. What the fizzeck indeed, man.

[Rodykitty]

It certainly isn't "shady" either.

I mean, to have a problem with a tactic that not only could make some things go faster, but actually limits an EXP supply to counter act the effects of making a chapter easier as "shady", I just simply can't fathom.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Rody

[Renall]

It certainly isn't "shady" either.

Because he asked what would be considered abuse, and I guess some people might think it is, and I happen to personally lean slightly that way? Might as well be comprehensive about all the possible things people might call "abuse."

[Rodykitty]

If some people think it is, then they're wrong.

[Renall]

If some people think it is, then they're wrong.

Some people don't think arena abuse is wrong because arenas are part of the game. I think most "serious" players would say that it is. So there is a degree of subjectivity, and the conventional wisdom of debaters isn't so much "right" as "most conducive to actually allowing for debate."

[Rodykitty]

Reinforcement blocking doesn't potentially break the game like arena abuse does. I would argue that grinding off the reinforcements is worse. Reinforcement blocking actually has disadvantages like I mentioned above.

[Renall]

Reinforcement blocking doesn't potentially break the game like arena abuse does. I would argue that grinding off the reinforcements is worse. Reinforcement blocking actually has disadvantages like I mentioned above.

Grinding on reinforcements is equally as abusive as arena abuse. That is, it's fine if you're just killing a stream of reinforcements (and blocking them is equivalent to this) until you're doing it to the point that you're just extending the chapter.

I suppose I should add a category separate from "abuse" that I would call "poor game design." Reinforcements that are blockable (without a very different objective system), reinforcements that are infinite (come on, they really have 8000 guys?), shitty shopping/base mechanics (hi FE6), bad objective design, maps that are too large/too small, etc. Exploiting these things isn't exactly wrong, but IS shouldn't have created these circumstances in the first place.

[Jaybee]

It's because the RNG can either bless a unit (I've had Nolan, Micaiah, Neph and Nailah maxed out in the same playthrough) or mess with you (Eliwood with 5 str at lvl 7). So if I said "Renault is better than Raven you nubs he can max all stats but Raven can't" you'd get shot. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but whatever. People would rather go with averages.

[Rodykitty]

Grinding on reinforcements is equally as abusive as arena abuse. That is, it's fine if you're just killing a stream of reinforcements (and blocking them is equivalent to this) until you're doing it to the point that you're just extending the chapter.

That is not reinforcement blocking for the sake of making managing the chapter easier.

This is about blocking reinforcements in such a way such as in order to make chapters such as FE5 Ch. 4 a more simple task.

Heaven forbid we block reinforcements in order to make collecting treasures and saving NPCs much easier. We can't do that though because apparently that's cheap.

Even in the scheme of killing reinforcements though, in efficient play if the reinforcement streams are so long that it takes so many turns, then you won't reap the whole rewards anyway. I certainly don't give any points to Catria for Ch. 14's reinforcements.

I suppose I should add a category separate from "abuse" that I would call "poor game design." Reinforcements that are blockable (without a very different objective system), reinforcements that are infinite (come on, they really have 8000 guys?), shitty shopping/base mechanics (hi FE6), bad objective design, maps that are too large/too small, etc. Exploiting these things isn't exactly wrong, but IS shouldn't have created these circumstances in the first place.

A chapter where you have only three guys at the start, one of them an absolute joke of a character that's never going to damage anything, all having to collect chests, save your guys, rescue NPCs, and everyone has to item trade to get going, all the while constant reinforcements coming to try and capture your dudes and the NPCs.

Maybe Intelligent Systems wants us to do something about this. What could that solution be?!

[Renall]

A chapter where you have only three guys at the start, one of them an absolute joke of a character that's never going to damage anything, all having to collect chests, save your guys, rescue NPCs, and everyone has to item trade to get going, all the while constant reinforcements coming to try and capture your dudes and the NPCs.

Maybe Intelligent Systems wants us to do something about this. What could that solution be?!

If Brighton was like "There are doors at each of the entrances. If one of us can hold them closed, maybe we can keep them out!" it would be clear that you were intended to block reinforcements. As it is, that particular chapter, which you seem to be fixated on, is perfectly beatable without blocking reinforcements, as the units you do have are perfectly capable of fighting the soldiers and you have more than enough time to free Lifis/Leaf/Fergus/Karin and arm them before they start coming in.

My point is that blocking reinforcements in this situation makes no sense. Or blocking them in the chapter with Glade, even though there are still open squares on the north side of the map. Why don't the reinforcements just ride around your blockade?

I'd prefer a system with 'objective areas' similar to the green line in 3-13 of FE10 that you can't let units through. If a certain number of your units "hold" that area (by being within a bounded area), the reinforcements stop. If the enemy "holds" the area (with other units actually present), they increase. That sort of thing, that makes it perfectly clear that certain areas are important (like a pass, or a doorway, or a gate), and that it's tactically viable to hold them. Blocking the spawns on the Glade chapter is basically exploiting the fact that you happen to know which squares the units will always appear on, even though the map provides no indication of this fact.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Renall

[Rodykitty]

It's not information spoon fed to the player, so it must be cheap. Nevermind that the fact that there are red guys coming from the hallways capturing everyone is enough information to go by, the game doesn't flatout tell you so it must be cheap.

[Renall]

It's not information spoon fed to the player, so it must be cheap. Nevermind that the fact that there are red guys coming from the hallways capturing everyone is enough information to go by, the game doesn't flatout tell you so it must be cheap.

Stop trolling. What stick is up your butt that you can't talk about anything but my disapproval of your strategy on one chapter of one game? Why aren't you addressing my better example? Do you have any opinion on my suggestion as to how that aspect of the game could be approved and even made more tactical? What button do I press to show me where all the reinforcements come from on outdoor maps, because apparently I can't find it?

[Dr. Tarrasque]

To add to the reinforcement discussion, here's what the GUIDE menu from FESD says:

*Image of a fort*

Stay sharp

*Image of a fort with a Pegasus Knight on it*

Or more foes will come!

Sometimes enemy reinforcements will appear during battle. You can stop this from happening by placing a unit on the space from which they emerge.

I honestly don't see how blocking reinforcements from appearing would be abuse. LETTING them come and staying in the chapter would be abuse because that's just gonna result in the same as arena abuse except that it will become gradually slower and you don't get money for it but there's still the matter of your enemies becoming stronger and making the following chapters a snorefest.

IS may not have directly stated that for the previous game but it's kinda obvious thanks to the fact that they tend to appear in fixed locations.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Sirius

[Renall]

IS may not have directly stated that for the previous game but it's kinda obvious thanks to the fact that they tend to appear in fixed locations.

I concede this on a chapter like FE5 ch4 because there's an explanation. I can't understand the notion applying to reinforcements that appear on the edges of an outdoor map. How does that even make sense?

[Rodykitty]

What button do I press to show me where all the reinforcements come from on outdoor maps, because apparently I can't find it?

You press A to open the menu and then "End Turn". Eventually you'll see them.

What stick is up your butt that you can't talk about anything but my disapproval of your strategy on one chapter of one game?

It's really not about my strategy, but rather the fact that you think reinforcement blocking is cheap for whatever reason. I am not saying that my strategy is almighty or perfect, but to say that it's cheap is just far fetched. My strategy limits EXP gain, for pete's sake, how can you call that cheap? Edited August 7, 2009 by Rody

[Renall]

I am not saying that my strategy is almighty or perfect, but to say that it's cheap is just far fetched. My strategy purposefully limits EXP gain, for pete's sake, how can you call that cheap?

The main reason I call it "cheap" is that it's unfair to the game and unrealistic (granted "realism" is a vague concept anyway in a fantasy game but bear with me). You're harping on an example I have to concede IS realistic. But there are better examples where it doesn't really make a lot of sense. So some horse guys are riding to attack my army on an open plain and I happen to know they only ever show up in four squares. So I stand four guys on those squares and suddenly the 20 guys who were going to show up the last few turns can't show up? They can't find another way around or something? They can't do anything to try to fight their way through your blockade, because they're "off the map" so they don't get to attack.

If the enemy got one move turn before you could place your units, and an enemy rode up and parked on one of your deployment squares and rendered it unusable, would that not kind of piss you off?

It's mitigated by the fact that you don't get the exp from killing them, but making the game easier doesn't always have to revolve around getting more experience.